When I went to school, you had to pay 3.25 USD for shitty meals that weren't cooked properly, had defects and was just over all disgusting.
Most people signed up for a waver where they didn't have to pay for breakfast or lunch, but they had to pay for any extras. It went off of your parents income and since I have one parent, I qualified. Still, I tried to NOT eat the food if I could help it.
I can't even describe how worthless the food was. I would bet that people in prison got better food, to be honest.
(I graduated in 2014, btw)
The only time I would pay for my food, is if it was gourmet and real, not processed bullshit that looked like it came straight from a dumpster.

The food sucks and you have to pay, thankfully I bring my lunch.
Seniors used to be able to go off campus for lunch, but not anymore.
Plus 20 minutes isn't enough time to drive to a restaurant order food, eat and get back to class on time

Oh really? It doesn't taste good, smell good are look good if you ask me.

I assume you're talking about the second picture here, and again: I'll take your word for it that the dish served was unappetizing. Not being there to try it myself I can't speak from a position of greater authority than you. I just have to trust you on that point. Now, does that reflect the general quality of food served to Swedish students, or is it more along the lines of the first image I posted? And whether that first image represents the typical Swedish school lunch or not, does it at least reflect lunches served at schools which have paid the fee to offer a "quality" lunch?

That sounds like an great idea, install cameras and monitors in school... Only problem being that it's illegal to have cameras in schools in Sweden. There was another school that installed cameras to hinder bullying but they had to remove them or pay damages since schools aren't allowed to have cameras. And the sad thing about that is that bullying increased in that school once they removed the cameras.

I think what I mean may have been lost in translation. A "monitor" in this case wouldn't be a camera, it would be a person. A teacher or other staff member who walks up and down the aisles of tables to watch over student behavior and which takes down the names of students involved in rules violations or which leave their trays and dishes unreturned.

Edit: With that in mind, I understand banning students and visitors from bringing cameras on school grounds. I do not, however, understand the rationale behind forbidding security cameras from being installed on campus. Can you explain the rationale behind that law?